Whats the deal with the price of gas#@#@

[apg]

When will you go away?

You're like liberal herpes! You're out of the way for weeks, but as soon as something interesting happens, you jump out and infect the discussion with your overactive information and hyperlink glands!

So, I take it you are all opposed to something called the First Amendment...it's your way or the highway, eh? ...and when confronted with an "inconvenient truth," you resort to school-yard name calling. Yeah, that really proves your point.... :yawn:

 

[kennith]

So, I take it you are all opposed to something called the First Amendment...it's your way or the highway, eh? ...and when confronted with an "inconvenient truth," you resort to school-yard name calling. Yeah, that really proves your point.... :yawn:

The first amendment has been abused by idiots like you for decades.

I must endure that torturous rambling of fools, however, because that amendment also protects my rights.

Am I guilty of name calling?

Yup. You're a fucking moron, and until you hatch your first original thought, you'll remain a fucking moron.

I don't care whether or not that proves any point. I wanted to pick on you, so that's what I did. If this was a school-yard, I'd have come up with something better.

Immature? Probably, but it's a damned sight more fun than trying to paddle up a waterfall, and that's what anyone has to do if they want you to stop taking notes long enough to actually understand something.

This isn't school, after all. That's the problem. You are in the great big world, APG. This isn't a test.

Memory, good notes, and piles of textbooks aren't enough.

Fact without reason is useless, and incredibly dangerous. Indeed, no matter how hard I train, I'll never be as lethal as a fool with a pile of books and a podium. This is why you'll win, eventually. Most humans are just too damned stupid to ignore people like you.

Even when you're right, you don't know why, and that's what's so sad about it all.

Jesus was right, apparently. The meek will inherit the earth.:rofl:

What's left, but to bully and laugh?

Cheers,

Kennith

 

[p m]

FWIW, Peter...

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

"Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value."

What about forest fires? Never mind, Google is my friend, too - http://www.livescience.com/1981-wildfires-release-cars.html

 

[pinkytoe69]

What about forest fires? Never mind, Google is my friend, too - http://www.livescience.com/1981-wildfires-release-cars.html

"Overall, the study estimated that fires in the contiguous United States and Alaska release about 290 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year, which is about 4 to 6 percent of the amount of the greenhouse gas that the nation releases through fossil fuel burning."

Were you trying to agree with the estimation that natural causes are a small percentage of human output?

 

[p m]

"Overall, the study estimated that fires in the contiguous United States and Alaska release about 290 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year, which is about 4 to 6 percent of the amount of the greenhouse gas that the nation releases through fossil fuel burning."

Were you trying to agree with the estimation that natural causes are a small percentage of human output?

Not at all.
Forest fires in the U.S. are relatively rare, compared to the frequency and size of fires elsewhere (fires in Amazon basin, SE Asia, Russia, etc.). The fuel consumption is just as relatively high. Both of these factors lead to an apparent conclusion that, in CONUS, forest fires provide measurable, but small, relative contribution to overall CO2 production.
This conclusion does not hold anywhere else. And if you care to do some more research, you'll find the CO/CO2 output from peat bog fires (something that happens near, say, Moscow every f'n year) dwarfing the U.S. forest fires' contributions by orders of magnitude.

 

[knewsom]

Pete Bogs? I suppose when they burn they are burning up biomass that has been locked beneath the ground for millions of years too?

Pete bog fires, just like forest fires, emit CO2 that was previously fixed as a part of their natural life cycle. They take it out of the air, they put it back into the air. Globally, on average, vegetation and land sources of CO2 fix a little bit more than what they emit. The same is true for the Ocean. What we are doing is putting it into the air without taking anything out. ...so while natural causes of CO2 may be greater in number than what we are adding, the natural absorption of CO2 has remained constant. What's changed rapidly is human activity. Surprise surprise, so has our climate.

It's like balancing an equation. Look at it like a Budget, Peter. The natural carbon fixing capacity of the earth is X. Vegetative and animal sources of CO2 from land and ocean are Y. On average, X ≥ Y by something like 17 gigatons. Currently we are contributing about 29 gigatons to the equation, which leaves a surplus of something like 12 gigatons in the atomosphere EACH YEAR. The worst part about this, is that as it increases, the ocean acidifies, reducing its ability to fix carbon further and decreasing oceanic life.

 

[p m]

Pete Bogs? I suppose when they burn they are burning up biomass that has been locked beneath the ground for millions of years too?

Pete bog fires, just like forest fires, emit CO2 that was previously fixed as a part of their natural life cycle. They take it out of the air, they put it back into the air. Globally, on average, vegetation and land sources of CO2 fix a little bit more than what they emit. The same is true for the Ocean. What we are doing is putting it into the air without taking anything out. ...so while natural causes of CO2 may be greater in number than what we are adding, the natural absorption of CO2 has remained constant. What's changed rapidly is human activity. Surprise surprise, so has our climate.

Kris, you know, I rarely resort to name calling.
But at this point I am about to question your mental capacity.

How exactly is burning oil is different from burning peat (note the spelling), or burning coal, or burning live forest, or (in terms closer to you) smoking pot?

Now, I know for a fact that you have no clue about what's in this statement - "Globally, on average, vegetation and land sources of CO2 fix a little bit more than what they emit. " You don't care to do your research, and just blow methane you've captured in MSM.

 

[rovercanus]

Pete Bogs?

Who is Pete Bogs? Why would we burn him?

 

[knewsom]

Kris, you know, I rarely resort to name calling.
But at this point I've got nothing else to go on.

Fixed it for you.

 

[mgreenspan]

Who is Pete Bogs? Why would we burn him?

Baseball hall of famer. He used juice. That's why we burn him.

 

[brian4d]

Baseball hall of famer. He used juice. That's why we burn him.

Wade Boggs, right?

I love all the Bill Nye comments on here. Or no, maybe Mr. Wizard? Everyone on the internet is a always right super scientist.

However, don't we have some real scientists here if memory serves?

 

[knewsom]

Wade Boggs, right?

I love all the Bill Nye comments on here. Or no, maybe Mr. Wizard? Everyone on the internet is a always right super scientist.

However, don't we have some real scientists here if memory serves?

We do indeed. I am not one of them, I will readily admit, and Peter is. ...however, I believe that credentials are sufficient information to base an opinion on.

(edit to correct a typo)

 

[p m]

I never claimed any credentials, neither the subject at hand requires any.
It takes an investigative capability of a good 10-grader and math skills of a 6-grader to come to some reasonable conclusions - if one elects to forgo both in order to toe the party line, my hat's off.

 

[knewsom]

I never claimed any credentials, neither the subject at hand requires any.
It takes an investigative capability of a good 10-grader and math skills of a 6-grader to come to some reasonable conclusions - if one elects to forgo both in order to toe the party line, my hat's off.

If you'd read many of the letters I'd been writing to our elected officials lately, I doubt you'd accuse me of "toeing the party line".

 

[brian4d]

If you'd read many of the letters I'd been writing to our elected officials lately, I doubt you'd accuse me of "toeing the party line".

Better watch it. You'll get audited by the IRS next year.

 

[knewsom]

Better watch it. You'll get audited by the IRS next year.

Tell me about it. ...or have my house searched come January 1st. There's fucking nobody I can vote for anymore.

 

[seventyfive]

PAGE FUCKING 4 OF PEOPLE EITHER COMPLAINING OR DEFENDING A POLITICAL STAND PONT, ON A THREAD STARTED BY SOMEONE DRIVING A VEHICLE THAT ON ITS BEST DAY GETS 14 MPG?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

not one single person driving a land rover (petrol) should ever complain about fuel economy or the price of gas. in my opinion the cost of fuel should put people in a position where the reevaluate where they work versus where they live. IF gas was $10 per gallon i guarentee America might just move back to work where you live and spend where you live, instead of all these cookie cutter shithole suburban communities where not one single person cares about their neighbor, because they dont know their neighbor.

think about it.
the price of energy (that propels transportation) has led this country to forego railway for high school drop out teamsters that dictate the price of our children's cereal, the goods we buy at local stores (granted most of us never step foot inside stores thanks to amazon), basically anything we purchase is dictated on the price of gas. a locomotive "Moving freight by rail is 3 times more fuel efficient than moving freight on the highway. Trains can move a ton of freight nearly 450 miles on a single gallon of fuel. Efficient use of fuel means fewer greenhouse gas emissions for our planet." from csx's website

americans are very easy creatures, we dont give an absolute fuck about anything until it hits our wallets, period. so for lefto commies pissing about our cars causing more thunder storms and holes in the ozone and the right wing nuts debunking any possibility what-so-ever that our internal combustion fossil fuel charged vehicles aren't affecting the price of cereal or putting a hole in the ozone....wake the fuck up.

but to drive a land rover and complain about gas prices, is like a size 16 chick complaining about how many calories is in the double whopper she just ate.

 

[Eliot]

Without cheap gas the suburbs really don't exist. Hopefully higher gas prices will shift our development habits and move us to something more sustainable, with higher density development, and mass transit*.

* It's almost perverse, the suburbs are dense enough to render the roads undrivable but not dense enough to support mass transit.